Speculation? Absolutely. It can’t be proven. But that doesn’t mean I don’t believe it.

The same way many on the right believe that Sandy Berger took original documents- its speculation and can’t be proven, but its been argued recently on this site.

“I do not want to downplay the importance of the trial for hopefully revealing more dirt”

to mean an *after the fact* assessment of its important, not a before the fact statement of intent. Seems to me a big part of analysis of historical events is to examine the relationship between the explicit stated purpose of something, and what actually happens.

I do not want to downplay the importance of the trial for hopefully revealing more dirt

That ax swings both ways.

It was reported that he had been indicted, but then the indictment disappeared mysteriously.

AP? Or maybe it was reported, by the AP, as this was today,

The United States is no longer bound by Kyoto, which the Bush administration rejected after taking office in 2001.

And I thought a senate resolution in the late 90′s killed that one.

I could never prove it, but what makes you so sure that Gonzales didn’t intercede for Rove? It was reported that he had been indicted, but then the indictment disappeared mysteriously.

An argument from lack of evidence is always a sure sign of a neutral, sober assessment free from bias….

I do not suggest that the prosecutor, in this case a Republican appointee who cut his teeth prosecuting organized crime figures, would use either the grand juries that took testimony prior to the trial or the Libby trial itself for vengeful means.

That is in fact EXACTLY what you suggested when you said that the “importance” of the trial lay in “hopefully revealing your dirt”. I am not putting words into your mouth to twist your intent here nor am I doing as some have done recently and just making stuff up and then falsely attributing it to you, I am quoting the words you CHOSE.

The White House sought to brand people as unpatriotic who questioned its rationales for the war at a time when those rationales began coming under scrutiny. It sought to punish others, including a clumsy effort at the direction of the vice president to out Plame through a syndicated columnist who was a Bush administration syncophant. Libby lied about that effort before a federal grand jury. That is why there is a trial in the first place.
Do you understand that?

You can keep trying to condescend as a replacement for argument, but I understand clearly that you are trying to assert as facts several items that are either your opinions and/or are questions that have not as yet been proven at trial:
(1) The White House sought to brand people as unpatriotic (actually, the revelation of Plame’s name was for an accusation of nepotism, not lack of patriotism, and the motive has no bearing on the facts of the case anyway)
(2) “at the direction of the vice president” (do you have tapes to prove this stunning conclusion and revelation of unindicted criminal behavior or is it just your speculation?)
(3) “out Plame” (she was not an undercover operative, she was working at Langley at the time, that’s the whole reason that Fitzgerald could make a direct case for the leak and is charging only on the lying to the grand jury secondary crime)
(4) “a syndicated columnist who was a Bush administration syncophant” (what a curious role you assert for the New York Times, an otherwise strongly anti-Bush paper…BTW, is there anyone that disagrees with you on these matters that you don’t automatically conclude to be a “Bush administration sycophant”?)
(5) “Libby lied about that effort before a federal grand jury” (obviously we don’t need a trial, because you have already decided on the facts without the bother of, you know, seeing any evidence or hearing any testimony…but its ok, because you are so unbiased and fair-minded on issues related to the Bush administration or, in fact, ANYONE that disagrees with you…)

excoriated the leading MSM rag for its outrageous behavior

The “outrageous behavior” you criticize is that the consistently anti-Bush NYT was not anti-Bush enough for you. WOW.

So, yes, I call that “non-reflective” because you clearly have no willingness to examine your biased assumptions and your criticism is reserved only for those who don’t automatically share your assumptions or, in the case of the Times, fail to share your biases stridently enough.

That is correct as far as it goes.

I do not suggest that the prosecutor, in this case a Republican appointee who cut his teeth prosecuting organized crime figures, would use either the grand juries that took testimony prior to the trial or the Libby trial itself for vengeful means.

Do you?

The White House sought to brand people as unpatriotic who questioned its rationales for the war at a time when those rationales began coming under scrutiny. It sought to punish others, including a clumsy effort at the direction of the vice president to out Plame through a syndicated columnist who was a Bush administration syncophant. Libby lied about that effort before a federal grand jury. That is why there is a trial in the first place.

Do you understand that?

I am puzzled by your view that the post was “unreflective” when in fact I:

(1.) Noted that something that once was considered to be a huge deal by lefties and the MSM seems far less significant when put into perspective.

(2.) Noted that Wilson and Plame have not exactly covered themselves with glory.

(3.) Excoriated the leading MSM rag for its outrageous behavior and stated that no matter of outcome of the trial, its reputation remains sullied.

If that isn’t reflective, I don’t know what is.

Do you?

I do not want to downplay the importance of the trial for hopefully revealing more dirt on how the administration has dealt with critics of the war, let alone how the case prepared by independent prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald holds up.

I thought the point of trials was to determinate legal guilt or innocence. It is disturbing when one side of the political spectrum seeks to use legal proceedings for purely vengeful political ends, especially when they feel so emboldened in doing as as to allow an unreflective post like this. Such behavior raises the spectre of criminalizing politics, where those who disagree with a particular majority view are subject not only to electoral defeat, but also to imprisonment.

This was dangerous during the Clinton administration and is no less so now.